Pay for publication? ; further examines citation practices; preprints and retractions – Retraction Watch

OWould you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads and our daily work? Thank you in advance.

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Our list of removed or removed COVID-19 items goes up to 211. There are now more than 32,000 withdrawals in our database – which now feeds withdrawal alerts in Endnote, LibKey, Papers and Zotero. And have you seen our ranking of authors with the most retractions lately – or our list of the 10 most cited retracted articles?

Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paid, have limited access, or require free registration to play):

  • A professor emeritus suggests paying for results – and per publication – instead of paying for plans.
  • “Citation Bias: Questionable Research Practice or Scientific Misconduct? »
  • “The number of citations reinforces the influence of the most cited articles and causes us to undervalue those that have less.”
  • “Given the critical importance of citation-based metrics in science, the developed concept of giants may offer a useful new dimension in the assessment of scientific impact that goes beyond mere citation counts.”
  • How often do preprint servers notice downstream retractions of published articles, and vice versa?
  • Yes, preprints can sow misinformation. But the same goes for newspaper articles and “awesome home graphics”.
  • “We found that 17% of respondents (about 1 in 6) admitted to 1 or more forms of scientific misconduct and 94% admitted to 1 or more QRPs relevant to quantitative research.”
  • “The retraction rate in veterinary and animal health has increased approximately 10 times per 1,000 articles since 1993, resulting primarily from an increase in mispublishing, often by repeat offenders.”
  • “We are generally encouraged by the lack of a notable difference in Epidemiology’s editorial decisions or decision time with respect to imputed or inferred sex.”
  • “There is a relative imbalance of author voices in medical education.”
  • “Sentiment Analysis in Peer Review Reports: Evidence from Two Science Funding Agencies.”
  • “[I]At least 19 opinion pieces have been determined to have been plagiarized between 2020 and 2021. The student’s name is withheld, following the advice of university student affairs officials.
  • “ResearchGate responsible for illegal content on its site, according to a German court.”
  • “The reproducibility debate is an opportunity, not a crisis.”
  • Paradoxically, the Physician Sunshine Act fueled more commercial surveillance and marketing.
  • “Are Tweets Helping Autism Research Articles Take Flight?”
  • “Most autism intervention studies lack data on race, ethnicity.”
  • “That’s why people may quote retracted articles” or not retract them in the first place. “There’s just no punishment for any of this.”
  • “It’s time to celebrate the ‘hidden’ contributors to science, including “Street children in Africa and a site engineer at a marine biology research station.”
  • “If you don’t want to agonize over the accuracy of your paperwork, please, for real: find something else to do.”
  • “Arkansas Prison’s Ivermectin Experiments Recall Historic Medical Abuses of Imprisoned Minorities.”
  • “Savarkar Biographer Vikram Sampath Accused of Plagiarism.”
  • “Course corrections needed in the peer review publishing process.”
  • “The state of the registration version.”
  • “The authors retract this letter after discovering structural assignment errors in which compounds identified as unsaturated piperazines (6aa-6ai, 6bb-6fb) are actually [3.9]-bicyclic aziridines (Figure 1).
  • “On the occasion of the symposium ‘Scientometrics, citation, plagiarism and predatory science publishing’, Sarajevo, 2021.”
  • BrowZine and LibKey users learn when they encounter retracted studies “in library services like databases and discovery platforms, or when the article is found on open websites like PubMed and Wikipedia.”

Like the retraction watch? You can do one time tax-deductible contribution by PayPal or by Square, or a tax-deductible monthly donation by Paypal to support our work, follow us on Twitterlike us on Facebookadd us to your RSS readeror subscribe to our daily summary. If you find a retraction that is not in our databaseyou can let us know here. For feedback or feedback, email us at [email protected]

Jacob L. Thornton